Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Billionaire talking about why he bought a jet

The old trick of:

Pay me $5 and I will tell you how to become rich.

Answer: Ask other people to pay you $5 to tell them how to become rich.

ESME, ESMS

Peter wrote:

He does what everybody does, just with different numbers, and is willing to be on TV and admit it, while winding up the audience nicely

The law requires you to pay the tax due under the law.

+1

Reading the rest of the thread he seems to be an investor (in property) and also he is writing books about his success. His “online life” is obviously very good PR for his books: “read my books, and you can live like I do”.

Morally he is an a$$ hole of course, if by nothing else than the size of the numbers, and the way he is behaving IMO. A perfect victim of looting in the “good old days” and no one would be sorry.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Silvaire wrote:

It was made for the UK market where selling crude caricatures of wealthy people, very much including Americans, makes money.

In that case it seems to reach the goal the guy is after, exposing probably unsuspecting business people as rich a$$holes they are probably not. I must say, in that clip, the interviewer came across to me as the much more unlikable guy.

Silvaire wrote:

There are a few Americans who appreciate these kind of self promoting blowhards, but most Americans are not in that category.

Well, the guy in this clip has sold quite a few books to mostly Americans to make it to the bestseller list, so apparently quite a few people are interested in what he has to say, even if it is selling a pipe dream in most cases. But then, so are cookbooks . Hardly ever can one achieve the results promoted in a “how to” book to the same level but it is nice dreaming about it. That goes for the perfect baked cheese cake as much as for making a million . But it sells books. I hear his are a lot better than a certain book about how to make a deal by the sitting president…

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 07 Feb 20:34
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Yes, though this is common. That bunch target wealthy and influential people – same as the Freemasons do, and for the same reasons. However, while getting people like this one and Tom Cruise does no harm, they also very successfully target the many young people who are “lost” and that’s where they do a lot of damage.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

AdamFrisch wrote:

But I do have a problem with him being a scientologist

with you 100%

EHLE / Lelystad, Netherlands, Netherlands

I have no problem with him buying a jet or being wealthy. But I do have a problem with him being a scientologist shill taking money from unsuspecting people. But perhaps that’s a completely different discussion.

I would also favour a flat tax system. We all pay the same and the richer don’t try to evade tax because they have to pay three times more than the poor.

Also, money that isn’t taken away directly by the taxman is spent by individuals on the market increasing, activities, sales, jobs, sales. This in turn creates more return to the taxman, but increased.

Last Edited by AfricanEagle at 07 Feb 15:18
Happy only when flying
Sabaudia airstrip LISB, Italy

I’m in favor of flat tax, I like simplicity in most things and prefer a more disciplined, less invasive role of government. It won’t ever pass in the US, at least not without a lot of compromises, because most people have adjusted their lives to match the existing system of deductions, including me. The recent changes in tax law are a move in the direction of flat tax – and I’m paying a little more income tax as a result.

@Mooney_Driver, this video was not made for the US market. It was made for the UK market where selling crude caricatures of wealthy people, very much including Americans, makes money. The host says his hope is to “put the BBC out of business”. There are a few Americans who appreciate these kind of self promoting blowhards, but most Americans are not in that category. Building productive business and working within tax law does not invariably equate to having an annoying personality, although if money can be made selling that image to the UK audience I’m sure he or somebody else will do it

I think its great if this guy or anybody else buys a biz jet and uses it, but self publicity to make money is a cancer on society. It’s bad enough in politics (a notably inefficient part of life) where it is a necessary evil to get the vote and then do things like move towards a flat tax.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 07 Feb 15:51

I think the “zero” option is the best and if I was setting up a new country it’s what I would do, but (a) you would never get it past the socialists and (b) you could never implement it anyway, after you have been running one of the other systems, because it would impoverish the “poor”.

One has to remember that income tax is only a bit of Govt revenues. Most people think it is all the tax that exists but actually the Govt gets a big pile from Corporation tax… And this guy bought the jet to save a load of CT, not IT.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Tax is a funny thing. Different societies have different ideas about what the fairest way to calculate taxes is, and some are polar opposite of the others. They all have a reasonable argument that they are the fairest way.

I think there are essentially four different bases for income tax.

Zero Income Tax
Under this system, individuals don’t pay any income tax. Society is funded by tax on companies and indirect taxes such as VAT/sales tax, property taxes, capital taxes etc.
There are arguments in favour of this such as
- It treats everyone equally…nobody pays any income tax
- It encourages individuals to make as much of themselves as they can as they keep the fruit of their efforts.
- It encourages a higher proportion of very high income people to live in your society, and the less well off locals benefit from the spill over into the local community
- Services can be funded by those who use them rather than everybody.
- Who doesn’t like zero taxes?

I understand Monaco operates on something like this.

A Capped System
Income tax is calculated under various rules. But if you reach a point where you’ve paid X in taxes, then you’re considered to have made your fair contribution to society and you don’t owe tax on any further income.
The arguments in favour of this include
- It costs a country Y to provide services for you (roads, security, etc). If you’ve paid enough tax to cover this for yourself and for a fair share of the poorer in society, then why should you continue to pay more? You’ve paid your fair share.
- It encourages a higher proportion of very high income people to live in your society, and the less well off locals benefit from the spill over into the local community

I understand that the Isle of Man may operate a system similar to this.

A Flat Rate Tax
Under this system, a flat rate of tax is charged on all income. There are no personal allowances or credits and not rate bands. You pay x% of your income no matter what you earn. You pay the same % on your first €£$ and your billionint €£$.
Arguments in favour of this include
- It’s fair on everyone as everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
- There are no tax loopholes or reliefs (which can usually only be enjoyed by those with income to spare)
- It’s very easy to understand and reduces cost of administration such as accountancy fees, tax office systems
- It minimises genuine calculations errors

I understand some if not all of the Channel Islands operate a system such as this

A Progressive Tax
Under this system as your income goes up you end up paying a progressively higher percentage of your income in taxes. The more you earn, the bigger the percentage of your income that goes in taxes.
Arguments in favour of this include
- The more income you have, then more tax you can afford. If you only early €£$10K then handing over 10% of this will be a big sacrifice. But if you earn €£$100M, then handing over 50% of the next €£$10K isn’t going to be near as much hardship.
- It allows those at the very bottom of society to try to improve their situation without having a lot of taxes taken away from their efforts.
- It can lead to a more equal society as quality of living can be somewhat redistributed.

Lots of people will argue in favour of any one of those systems and they all have reasonable arguments. It’s up to a society to choose which one they want to use.

I don’t blame this guy for buying his jet. He looked at the rules that he’s asked to live by and asked himself “Of the options that society has given me, which is the one that I would suit me best?” If the American tax system says that he can write off the cost of his jet in year 1, then that’s what it says. It will probably apply equally to the company car that is supplied to some sales man, or a guy buying a new computer for his web development business which he operate from his bedroom. If society decides that this is unfair, they just have to change the rules.

It’s far more legitimate than someone operating outside the tax rules eg the employee doing a nixer (job outside their employment) and pocketing the cash and evading paying the tax on that income.

I’d be far more critical if he set up bogus companies in some off shore country to evade tax and hide his earnings and operate outside the rules set by society. But if you operate inside the rules set by society then that’s fair. Often these rules are set up to help encourage high wealth individuals to send or invest their wealth in particular industries that the government wishes to support grow or even save from bankruptcy.

EIWT Weston, Ireland
47 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top